Outcome measurement and service evaluation - a note on research design.

The purpose of this research note is to demonstrate how an individualised quality of life instrument could be adapted to provide a more accurate estimate of the impact of a social service on a person’s quality of life. An increase in quality of life between the start and end of a service is often taken as an indication that the service impacted positively on quality of life. The modifications to the quality of life instrument suggested in this paper show that this assumption is not always accurate and should be questioned directly

Generic, disease-specific and individualised approaches to measuring health-related quality of life among people with heart disease - a comparative analysis

Increasing emphasis is being placed on the evaluation of health-related quality of life. However, there is no consensus on the definition of this concept and as a result there are a plethora of existing measurement instruments. Head-to-head comparisons of the psychometric properties of existing instruments are necessary to facilitate evidence-based decisions about which instrument should be chosen for routine use. Therefore, an individualised instrument (the modified Patient Generated Index), a generic instrument (the Short Form 36) and a disease-specific instrument (the Quality of Life after Myocardial Infarction questionnaire) were administered to patients with ischaemic heart disease (n=117) and the evidence for the validity, reliability and sensitivity of each instrument was examined and compared. The modified Patient Generated Index compared favourably with the other instruments but none of the instruments examined provided sound evidence for sensitivity to change. Therefore, any recommendation for the use of the individualised approach in the routine collection of health-related quality of life data in clinical practice must be conditional upon the submission of further evidence to support the sensitivity of such instruments